Analysis of the effect of heterogeneous human capital on new urbanization in China

Figures & data

Table 1. The index system for new urbanization.

	Indicators	Unit	Weight	Indicator type
Population urbanization indicators	Proportion of the nonrural population	%	0.0469	Positive
	Registered urban unemployment rate	%	0.0381	Negative
	Engel coefficient of urban residents	No	0.0175	Negative
Economic development and efficiency indicators	GDP per capita	Yuan	0.0569	Positive
	Proportion of the added value of the tertiary industry	%	0.0527	Positive
	Per capita disposable income in urban areas	Yuan	0.0932	Positive
	Energy consumption per unit of GDP	Tons of standard coal/ten thousand yuan	0.0159	Negative
	Electricity consumption per unit of GDP	Kilowatt-hour/ten thousand yuan	0.0124	Negative
Ecological environment indicators	Afforestation coverage rate of built-up areas	%	0.0207	Positive
	Per capita park green area	Square meters	0.0261	Positive
	Annual average PM2.5 concentration	Micrograms/cubic meter	0.0244	Negative
	Urban sewage treatment rate	%	0.0147	Positive
	Harmless treatment rate of household waste	%	0.0181	Positive
Infrastructure indicators	Public transport vehicles per 10,000 people	Set	0.0463	Positive
	Per capita residential floor area	Square meters	0.0971	Positive
	Cable radio and television occupancy rate	%	0.0528	Positive
	Urban road area per capita	Square meters	0.0192	Positive
	Number of beds in health institutions per 1,000 people	Sheets	0.0418	Positive
Public service indicators	Public libraries per capita	Units	0.0596	Positive
	Average number of students in institutions of higher learning per 100,000 people	%	0.0414	Positive
	Public toilets per 10,000 people	Units	0.045	Positive
	Urban endowment insurance participation rate	%	0.0522	Positive
	Urban medical insurance participation rate	%	0.0586	Positive
Coordinated urban–rural development indicators	The ratio of Engel’s coefficient between urban and rural households	No	0.0252	Negative
	Comparison of consumption levels between urban and rural areas (rural residents =1)	No	0.0229	Negative

Source: Own research based on data from the China Statistical Yearbook, China City Statistical Yearbook and China Environmental Statistical Yearbook.

Table 2. Average comprehensive score and ranking of the quality of new urbanization in China.

Provinces	Average score	Rank	Provinces	Average score	Rank
Beijing	0.7725	1	Shaanxi	0.2724	16
Shanghai	0.7346	2	Sichuan	0.2663	17
Zhejiang	0.5179	3	Xinjiang	0.2603	18
Tianjin	0.4876	4	Hunan	0.2574	19
Jiangsu	0.4628	5	Shanxi	0.2557	20
Guangdong	0.4202	6	Jiangxi	0.2548	21
Fujian	0.3619	7	Ningxia	0.2546	22
Liaoning	0.3509	8	Hebei	0.2527	23
Shandong	0.3458	9	Qinghai	0.2405	24
Inner Mongolia	0.3236	10	Yunnan	0.2154	25
Chongqing	0.3119	11	Henan	0.2141	26
Jilin	0.2912	12	Anhui	0.2087	27
Heilongjiang	0.2872	13	Guangxi	0.2034	28
Hainan	0.2846	14	Gansu	0.1780	29
Hubei	0.2757	15	Guizhou	0.1691	30

Source: Own research based on data from the China Statistical Yearbook, China City Statistical Yearbook and China Environmental Statistical Yearbook.

Table 3. Description of the variables used in the model.

Variable type	Variable name	Description
Dependent variable	The new urbanization (ur)	Comprehensive scores of the new urbanization quality evaluation
Independent variables	Basic human capital (hum1)	Proportion of the illiterate population *2+ Proportion of the primary school population *6+ Proportion of the middle school population*9
	Skill-based human capital (hum2)	Proportion of the high school population*12+ Proportion of the tertiary education population *15
	Knowledge-based human capital (hum3)	Proportion of the undergraduate population*16+ Proportion of the postgraduate population*19
Control variables	Degree of openness (open)	Total import and export trade/GDP
	Degree of marketization (mar)	National Economic Research Institute (NERI) index of marketization of China’s provinces
	R&D investment intensity (RD)	R&D input/GDP
	Educational level (edu)	Government expenditure on education/GDP

Source: Author’s calculations.

Table 4. Summary statistics of the variables.

Variable	Number	Mean	Std. Dev.	Minimum	Maximum
ur	450	0.325	0.146	0.106	0.830
hum1	450	2.721	0.0904	2.227	2.826
hum2	450	2.440	0.152	1.991	2.765
hum3	450	1.906	0.345	1.102	2.833
open	450	0.298	0.341	0.0114	1.754
mar	450	0.800	0.134	0.367	1.069
edu	450	0.0397	0.0152	0.0158	0.0899
RD	450	0.0147	0.0108	0.00174	0.0630

Source: Author’s calculations.

Figure 1. Moran’s I trend of human capital and the new urbanization level.

Source: Author’s calculations.

Table 5. LM test, LR test and Wald test for the two spatial weight matrices.

	Test	Statistic	Probability
Geographical distance	LMlag	75.917	0.000
	R-LMlag	9.493	0.000
	LMerr	403.179	0.000
	R-LMerr	336.756	0.000
	LR test for SAR	105.35	0.000
	LR test for SEM	99.59	0.000
	Wald test	44.00	0.000
Economic distance	LMlag	54.635	0.000
	R-LMlag	16.687	0.000
	LMerr	56.404	0.000
	R-LMerr	18.456	0.000
	LR test for SAR	146.68	0.000
	LR test for SEM	196.18	0.000
	Wald test	61.46	0.000

Source: Author’s calculations.

Table 6. SDM results based on random effect and fixed effect models.

	Model (1)		Model (2)
	Geographical distance matrix	Economic distance matrix	Geographical distance matrix	Economic distance matrix
lnhum1	2.234* (1.098)	2.114* (0.979)	1.122*** (7.439)	0.725*** (3.94)
lnhum2	1.249*** (0.293)	1.232*** (0.275)	0.518*** (6.052)	0.370*** (3.79)
lnhum3	0.0856 (0.0769)	0.0871 (0.0830)	0.019 (0.393)	−0.017 (−0.35)
lnmar	0.360*** (0.0839)	0.353*** (0.0824)	0.301*** (4.081)	0.446*** (6.38)
lnopen	−0.0110 (0.0331)	−0.0105 (0.0322)	−0.016 (−1.152)	−0.013 (−0.86)
lnRD	0.118*** (0.0328)	0.126*** (0.0320)	0.102*** (3.613)	0.157*** (5.93)
lnedu	−0.264*** (0.0683)	−0.274*** (0.0648)	−0.285*** (−6.997)	−0.321*** (−8.09)
W lnhum1	−0.146 (1.332)	0.0245 (0.956)	1.732** (2.095)	0.673** (2.51)
W lnhum2	−1.571*** (0.425)	−1.669*** (0.398)	0.412 (0.766)	0.144 (0.66)
W lnhum3	0.423** (0.158)	0.327* (0.157)	0.051 (0.151)	0.267** (2.03)
W lnmar	−0.395*** (0.117)	−0.365** (0.129)	0.721 (1.393)	0.612*** (3.33)
W lnopen	0.147 (0.106)	0.142 (0.0911)	0.267** (2.237)	−0.156*** (−4.36)
W lnRD	0.269 (0.157)	0.326* (0.140)	0.731*** (4.016)	−0.009 (−0.13)
W lnedu	0.0554 (0.123)	0.137 (0.107)	−1.140*** (−4.304)	0.176** (2.08)
Individual fixed effects	No	No	Yes	Yes
Time fixed effects	No	No	Yes	Yes
R^2	0.5	0.51	0.304	0.343
samples	450	450	450	450

Notes: ***, **, and *denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. The data in parentheses are robust standard errors.

Source: Author’s calculations.

Table 7. SDM regression results.

	Model (3)		Model (4)
	Geographical distance matrix	Economic distance matrix	Geographical distance matrix	Economic distance matrix
lnhum1	0.694*** (4.300)	0.434** (2.153)	1.122*** (7.439)	0.725*** (3.94)
lnhum2	0.465*** (4.897)	0.403*** (3.758)	0.518*** (6.052)	0.370*** (3.79)
lnhum3	0.027 (0.496)	0.010 (0.190)	0.019 (0.393)	−0.017 (−0.35)
lnmar			0.301*** (4.081)	0.446*** (6.38)
lnopen			−0.016 (−1.152)	−0.013 (−0.86)
lnRD			0.102*** (3.613)	0.157*** (5.93)
lnedu			−0.285*** (−6.997)	−0.321*** (−8.09)
W lnhum1	0.792 (0.900)	0.617** (2.114)	1.732** (2.095)	0.673** (2.51)
W lnhum2	1.027* (1.809)	−0.125 (−0.546)	0.412 (0.766)	0.144 (0.66)
W lnhum3	0.119 (0.317)	0.219 (1.558)	0.051 (0.151)	0.267** (2.03)
W lnmar			0.721 (1.393)	0.612*** (3.33)
W lnopen			0.267** (2.237)	−0.156*** (−4.36)
W lnRD			0.731*** (4.016)	−0.009 (−0.13)
W lnedu			−1.140*** (−4.304)	0.176** (2.08)
Individual fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Time fixed effects	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
R^2	0.086	0.109	0.304	0.343
samples	450	450	450	450

Notes: ^***, ^**, and ^*denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. The data in parentheses are robust standard errors.

Source: Author’s calculations.

Table 8. Estimation results of the spillover effects.

Variable	Spatial weight matrix
	Geographical distance			Economic distance
	Direct effect	Spillover effect	Total effect	Direct effect	Spillover effect	Total effect
lnhum1	1.104*** (6.917)	0.811 (1.444)	1.915*** (3.682)	0.761*** (4.13)	0.945*** (3.19)	1.706*** (5.57)
lnhum2	0.511*** (6.019)	0.133 (0.367)	0.644* (1.842)	0.376*** (4.04)	0.266 (1.06)	0.642** (2.47)
lnhum3	0.024 (0.517)	0.034 (0.146)	0.058 (0.239)	−0.001 (−0.02)	0.315** (1.96)	0.314* (1.75)
lnmar	0.289*** (3.794)	0.410 (1.096)	0.699** (2.012)	0.472*** (6.88)	0.829*** (3.78)	1.301*** (5.45)
lnopen	−0.022 (−1.550)	0.199** (2.113)	0.177* (1.897)	−0.018 (−1.29)	−0.186*** (−4.00)	−0.205*** (−3.93)
lnRD	0.090*** (3.241)	0.466*** (3.681)	0.556*** (4.540)	0.159*** (6.09)	0.018 (0.23)	0.177** (2.12)
lnedu	−0.266*** (−6.250)	−0.695*** (−3.599)	−0.961*** (−5.138)	−0.317*** (−7.68)	0.142 (1.46)	−0.175 (−1.62)

Notes: ^***, ^**, and ^* denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. The data in parentheses are robust standard errors.

Source: Author’s calculations.

Table 9. Heterogeneity test results.

lnhum1	East	Middle	West
	0.297***	1.167*	0.470***
	(0.000)	(0.081)	(0.000)
lnhum2	0.387***	0.251	0.119*
	(0.000)	(0.263)	(0.062)
lnhum3	−0.045**	−0.040	−0.007
	(0.013)	(0.660)	(0.813)
lnmar	0.079	1.177***	0.149***
	(0.283)	(0.000)	(0.005)
lnopen	−0.033*	0.797***	0.059
	(0.084)	(0.005)	(0.312)
lnRD	−2.579***	17.475***	2.006
	(0.007)	(0.000)	(0.250)
lnedu	−1.055*	−8.168***	−0.876**
	(0.064)	(0.000)	(0.038)
W lnhum1	0.258***	−0.527	1.308**
	(0.001)	(0.631)	(0.010)
W lnhum2	0.255***	−0.351	0.122
	(0.000)	(0.298)	(0.542)
W lnhum3	−0.043**	−0.003	−0.143
	(0.044)	(0.981)	(0.151)
W lnmar	−0.000	0.297	−0.043
	(1.000)	(0.417)	(0.810)
W lnopen	0.015	1.294	0.054
	(0.745)	(0.133)	(0.810)
W lnRD	0.365	24.307***	2.910
	(0.861)	(0.001)	(0.654)
W lnedu	−0.957	−15.524***	1.385
	(0.354)	(0.000)	(0.222)
Spatial rho	−0.218**	−0.481***	−0.472***
	(0.035)	(0.000)	(0.003)

Notes: ^***, ^**, and ^*denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. The data in parentheses are standard errors.

Source: Author’s calculations.

Table 10. Robustness test results.

	lnur	lnur
lnhum1	0.629
	(0.372)
lnhum2	0.757***
	(0.191)
lnhum3	0.467***
	(0.0679)
lnhum1_lag(1)		3.042***
		(0.680)
lnhum2_lag(1)		1.558***
		(0.433)
lnhum3_lag(1)		−0.0525
		(0.230)
lnmar	0.376***	0.0997
	(0.0812)	(0.0603)
lnopen	−0.0203	0.0336*
	(0.0205)	(0.0145)
lnRD	0.156***	0.192***
	(0.0350)	(0.0246)
lnedu	−0.344***	−0.226***
	(0.0528)	(0.0381)
R^2	0.593	0.741

Notes: ^***, ^**, and ^*denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. The data in parentheses are standard errors.

Source: Author’s calculations.